About 1 Cor. 3, it's my understanding that in context the builders Paul is referring to are himself and other preachers, not all believers. He's addressing a dispute between factions in Corinth who said they belonged to one preacher or another (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) instead of to Christ. A footnote in my NJB supports this interpretation, for whatever the footnotes are worth.
Here is what J. I. Packer (Anglican, I believe) has to say about Step 4: "At death the souls of believers (i.e., the believers themselves, as ongoing persons) are made perfect in holiness and enter into the worshiping life of heaven (Heb. 12:22-24). In other words, they are glorified. Some, not believing this, posit a purgatorial discipline after death that is really a further stage of sanctification, progressively purifying the heart and refining the character in preparation for the vision of God. But this belief is neither scriptural nor rational, for if at Christ's coming saints alive on earth will be perfected morally and spiritually in the moment of their bodily transformation (1 Cor. 15:51-54), it is only natural to suppose that the same is done for each each believer in the moment of death, when the mortal body is left behind."
My questions:
1. Is Packer's position what you identified as gnosticism above?
2. Related, it's my understanding is even Roman Catholic teaching says martyrs are immediately brought to heaven; if some can be instantaneously sanctified, why not others?
3. As someone raised in more or less Bible-based Protestant traditions, I have an easier time considering the idea of purgatory as sanctification (for purification) than purgatory as punishment satisfying God's justice. If Jesus's atonement was complete, how can there be anything left to pay to satisfy God's justice? Note that I understand discipline (e.g. Heb. 12) to be correction for our good (sanctification) vs. punishment which is simply to satisfy a party wronged. Is this a definitional issue and something else is meant by punishment in the doctrine of purgatory?
4. Furthermore, if Jesus's death was necessary for us to be reconciled to God, how is it then that any amount of suffering on our part for sins committed after baptism could be sufficient to pay our debt to him?
My intent writing here is not to be argumentative; I am honestly looking for answers to these questions and I hope this comment doesn't come across any other way.
It is correct that there were factions building in Corinth. Specifically they were creating genealogies based upon who had baptized them. This also explains Paul's comments as well in chapter 1. This particular focus on which priest conferred the sacraments, rather than the sacraments themselves, really exploded into an issue with the heresy of Donatism a few centuries later. The sacraments should be the focus, not the priest who confers the sacraments.
Now to your questions:
1. The quotes you give for Packer don't give much information. He doesn't explain WHAT the Step 4 is. He just says the soul is "made perfect". So couldn't we call this a purgation of the sin and evil that remains in our soul? It seems like he wants to admit that Step 4 exists, but doesn't want to admit that Purgatory is real. Does he deny the existence and need for Purgatory? I can't really answer to his views but so far it seems like he's trying to tap dance around the necessity of Purgatory while admitting some purgation is needed.
2. Purgatory isn't required. As Scripture says, we can make up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions while here on earth. We can work out our salvation in fear and trembling while still alive. Performing indulgences is a good way to do this, as is fasting, prayer, almsgiving and acts of charity. The more we do this, the more we are cooperating with God to sanctify our souls and purify them. Purgatory is only needed for those who still have the stain of sin on our souls or have some temporal punishment we must fulfill.
3. Christ's sacrifice was the offering of the Son to the Father to reconcile mankind back to God. It is infinite and eternal. That doesn't mean there will be no more punishment for things we do. Calvary happened two millenia ago yet there was something we had to do during our lives to make the merits of that sacrifice apply to us.
I like to explain it like this. Let's say you have stolen $1,000 from someone. You realize it is wrong and ask God to forgive you for this sin. God forgives you. Do you get to keep the $1,000?
The answer is no. There is still something temporal that must be done. There is still some punishment that is due. You have been forgiven of the eternal damnation for your sin, but there is still some earthly punishment due. Do you agree?
4. I think you are conflating Christ's sacrifice that grants to us eternal salvation with the temporal punishment due for our sins. Murderers can be forgiven of their sin by God and still be required to be punished for the temporal effects of that sin. Even up to being executed for that sin.
But there is also an eternal aspect of suffering that we also must participate in. It is this suffering that Paul refers to when he says that he is making up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Christ commands us to follow Him and pick up our cross daily. That's not optional. We must unite ourselves with Him, which means uniting ourselves to Him in His Passion. He is the Head and we are His Body. His Body was with Him in the Passion.
Protestant theology on this concept is really lacking because it wants to deny the necessity of works as a requirement of salvation. But Jesus wasn't kidding about that.
These were great questions and if you have more, you can feel free to message them to me and I might make them into a substack on their own! God bless!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I must also apologize for the extreme delay in response; I've been spending much more time in the last few months looking into the question of the Catholic Church's authority than Purgatory itself.
About Packer, I don't know much more about his particular views on Purgatory.
About points 3 and 4, you have it exactly: it is really the distinction between temporal and eternal punishment that I have trouble understanding, or seeing in the (Protestant) Bible. This part -- "Christ's sacrifice was the offering of the Son to the Father to reconcile mankind back to God" -- is helpful, thank you; if I understand correctly you are saying that Christ's sacrifice is about bringing us back into relationship with God but, for example, even in the case of earthly parents, being in relationship with them doesn't mean there is no need for punishment (or discipline).
However, as regards the $1,000 question, I don't understand how suffering in purgatory returns the $1,000 that was hypothetically stolen to the person who was wronged, or even returns it fourfold as in the Scriptural command about restitution, which I think is the answer to whether you get to keep the money. In my view, returning it is not about punishing the thief but about making whole the one who was wronged by suffering theft. Nor does executing a murderer make the victim live again, though capital punishment is clearly Biblical. So there must be something I am missing here about the moral necessity of punishment apart from restitution and reconciliation as a general principle; do you have any more insight on that?
Thank you! You are so relevant in this piece. And as usual I have learned more about our beautiful Faith 🙏
About 1 Cor. 3, it's my understanding that in context the builders Paul is referring to are himself and other preachers, not all believers. He's addressing a dispute between factions in Corinth who said they belonged to one preacher or another (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) instead of to Christ. A footnote in my NJB supports this interpretation, for whatever the footnotes are worth.
Here is what J. I. Packer (Anglican, I believe) has to say about Step 4: "At death the souls of believers (i.e., the believers themselves, as ongoing persons) are made perfect in holiness and enter into the worshiping life of heaven (Heb. 12:22-24). In other words, they are glorified. Some, not believing this, posit a purgatorial discipline after death that is really a further stage of sanctification, progressively purifying the heart and refining the character in preparation for the vision of God. But this belief is neither scriptural nor rational, for if at Christ's coming saints alive on earth will be perfected morally and spiritually in the moment of their bodily transformation (1 Cor. 15:51-54), it is only natural to suppose that the same is done for each each believer in the moment of death, when the mortal body is left behind."
My questions:
1. Is Packer's position what you identified as gnosticism above?
2. Related, it's my understanding is even Roman Catholic teaching says martyrs are immediately brought to heaven; if some can be instantaneously sanctified, why not others?
3. As someone raised in more or less Bible-based Protestant traditions, I have an easier time considering the idea of purgatory as sanctification (for purification) than purgatory as punishment satisfying God's justice. If Jesus's atonement was complete, how can there be anything left to pay to satisfy God's justice? Note that I understand discipline (e.g. Heb. 12) to be correction for our good (sanctification) vs. punishment which is simply to satisfy a party wronged. Is this a definitional issue and something else is meant by punishment in the doctrine of purgatory?
4. Furthermore, if Jesus's death was necessary for us to be reconciled to God, how is it then that any amount of suffering on our part for sins committed after baptism could be sufficient to pay our debt to him?
My intent writing here is not to be argumentative; I am honestly looking for answers to these questions and I hope this comment doesn't come across any other way.
Sorry for the extreme delay in response.
It is correct that there were factions building in Corinth. Specifically they were creating genealogies based upon who had baptized them. This also explains Paul's comments as well in chapter 1. This particular focus on which priest conferred the sacraments, rather than the sacraments themselves, really exploded into an issue with the heresy of Donatism a few centuries later. The sacraments should be the focus, not the priest who confers the sacraments.
Now to your questions:
1. The quotes you give for Packer don't give much information. He doesn't explain WHAT the Step 4 is. He just says the soul is "made perfect". So couldn't we call this a purgation of the sin and evil that remains in our soul? It seems like he wants to admit that Step 4 exists, but doesn't want to admit that Purgatory is real. Does he deny the existence and need for Purgatory? I can't really answer to his views but so far it seems like he's trying to tap dance around the necessity of Purgatory while admitting some purgation is needed.
2. Purgatory isn't required. As Scripture says, we can make up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions while here on earth. We can work out our salvation in fear and trembling while still alive. Performing indulgences is a good way to do this, as is fasting, prayer, almsgiving and acts of charity. The more we do this, the more we are cooperating with God to sanctify our souls and purify them. Purgatory is only needed for those who still have the stain of sin on our souls or have some temporal punishment we must fulfill.
3. Christ's sacrifice was the offering of the Son to the Father to reconcile mankind back to God. It is infinite and eternal. That doesn't mean there will be no more punishment for things we do. Calvary happened two millenia ago yet there was something we had to do during our lives to make the merits of that sacrifice apply to us.
I like to explain it like this. Let's say you have stolen $1,000 from someone. You realize it is wrong and ask God to forgive you for this sin. God forgives you. Do you get to keep the $1,000?
The answer is no. There is still something temporal that must be done. There is still some punishment that is due. You have been forgiven of the eternal damnation for your sin, but there is still some earthly punishment due. Do you agree?
4. I think you are conflating Christ's sacrifice that grants to us eternal salvation with the temporal punishment due for our sins. Murderers can be forgiven of their sin by God and still be required to be punished for the temporal effects of that sin. Even up to being executed for that sin.
But there is also an eternal aspect of suffering that we also must participate in. It is this suffering that Paul refers to when he says that he is making up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Christ commands us to follow Him and pick up our cross daily. That's not optional. We must unite ourselves with Him, which means uniting ourselves to Him in His Passion. He is the Head and we are His Body. His Body was with Him in the Passion.
Protestant theology on this concept is really lacking because it wants to deny the necessity of works as a requirement of salvation. But Jesus wasn't kidding about that.
These were great questions and if you have more, you can feel free to message them to me and I might make them into a substack on their own! God bless!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I must also apologize for the extreme delay in response; I've been spending much more time in the last few months looking into the question of the Catholic Church's authority than Purgatory itself.
About Packer, I don't know much more about his particular views on Purgatory.
About points 3 and 4, you have it exactly: it is really the distinction between temporal and eternal punishment that I have trouble understanding, or seeing in the (Protestant) Bible. This part -- "Christ's sacrifice was the offering of the Son to the Father to reconcile mankind back to God" -- is helpful, thank you; if I understand correctly you are saying that Christ's sacrifice is about bringing us back into relationship with God but, for example, even in the case of earthly parents, being in relationship with them doesn't mean there is no need for punishment (or discipline).
However, as regards the $1,000 question, I don't understand how suffering in purgatory returns the $1,000 that was hypothetically stolen to the person who was wronged, or even returns it fourfold as in the Scriptural command about restitution, which I think is the answer to whether you get to keep the money. In my view, returning it is not about punishing the thief but about making whole the one who was wronged by suffering theft. Nor does executing a murderer make the victim live again, though capital punishment is clearly Biblical. So there must be something I am missing here about the moral necessity of punishment apart from restitution and reconciliation as a general principle; do you have any more insight on that?